Lockheed Martin once built an airship to go over 18km. Due to budget cuts and the required removal of equipment, a critical valve froze at about half that height, cutting the test flight short with an "unplanned controlled descent". The airship landed in a forest, and when the sun came out the next day, the solar panels started a fire.
Well, all except the part about "the solar panels started a fire." No, nothing caught fire. It just sort of crumpled and sat there in the trees.
http://defense-update.com/20110729_hale-d-high-altitude-airship-crashed-in-ohio.html
http://www.ohio.com/news/break-news/lockheed-martin-s-prototype-blimp-crashes-during-maiden-voyage-with-video-1.226880
...of these incidents are going to occur before someone decides it's an act of war?
We declared a "war on terror" fifteen years ago, and have not yet negotiated a peace treaty, so, yes: it's one more act of war in the ongoing war that we declared fifteen years ago.
But when it's not a country doing the attack, uh, who do you think we should retaliate against? We're already killing terrorists, or anybody we think might be terrorists or supporting terrorists or related to terrorists, with drone strikes as fast as we can.
The attackers want a disproportionate response. They're trying to provoke a retaliation; that would serve as a recruiting tool for them,
Basically, bug bounties mean you're paying freelancers to set up a working group to find exploits. And then hope that, once they have their group working well, that the group you paid to set up will sell their results to you, and only you.
Here's what Machiavelli said about mercenaries:
Mercenaries and auxiliaries are dangerous and unreliable. If a mercenary is talented, he will always be trying to increase his power at the prince's expense./blockquote?
These "culture change" things are always hot air, not reality.
Unless they plan to fire 90% of their people, their employees will just wait it out. After a while people will forget the rhetoric. Or the managers will leave and be replaced by others with different buzz word reorganization plans.
With Hillary, yeah, you could say "so what if she's corrupt as shit and lies through her teeth? Don't all politicians do that?"
"she's corrupt as shit and lies through her teeth" is the line that the Republican machine has been drilling into us for years, yes, but as far as I can tell, there's no particular truth in that.
Pretty much every time I turn around they are starting some new million-dollar investigation (paid for by the public) that "this time" is going to get to the bottom of it, and this time will really dig up the dirt... but they never go anywhere.
Well, except that this one seem to be all smoke, no fire.
That seems to be the pattern-- "she's certain to be indicted for this purported scandal. Well, there was nothing there, but anyway she's certain to be indicted for that purported scandal. Well, that turned out to be nothing, but she'd really certain to be indicted for this other purported scandal..."
None of them ever seem to have any real substance. But the endless barrage of smoke keeps getting generated.
As has been well documented, when she was in office there was no regulation saying that a secretary of state couldn't use their own e-mail server, and as it turns out many of the previous secretaries of state, including both Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, did so as well-- but apparently since they were under Republican administrations, they're above criticism.
And, uh, yes, it is customary to wipe your email server.
Id like to see that list of people so we can go after them as well
OK, I just named two: Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice.
As far as I can tell, Hillary is criticized for things that, when other people do them, get a response of "well, so what?" The continuing barrage of criticism of Hillary over things that are complete non-issues seems to be very good testimony that there isn't anything substantive to go after her for.
Turns out it's been shown that hearing half of a conversation is much more distracting and annoying than hearing people talking to each other.
I am extremely sympathetic to this guy. I'd like to myself have the technology to shut down annoying people doing annoying things. Unfortunately, I am also sympathetic to the fact that this is illegal, and it's illegal for good reason, and he should go to jail. If he'd only done it once, he should just get a warning: but this isn't the first time, and he should go to jail
Reagan did not start out negotiating with the Soviets, he initially scared the crap of them and they were convinced that Reagan was going to start a war with a pre-emptive nuclear strike.
That was seriously frightening, since their response to what they perceived as preparations by us for war was to move to launch-on-warning status, which means that an error could have catastrophic consequences.
In terms of technology, this was all a consequence of the adoption of MIRV warheads in the 70s, in which a small number of missiles launched could take out most, or possibly all, of the missiles of the other side, giving the first side to launch an overwhelming advantage.
It apparently never occurred to Reagan that the Soviets might find our moves threatening. He was so fixed in the viewpoint that the Soviets were the ones with evil intent, that he was unable to consider that they might see us as the aggressors.
Reagan slowly transitioned to a defensive posture and then finally to a de-arming posture (The Dead Hand by David Hoffman touches on this and the Soviet militaries view of the west... it's a great read).
Reagan is not a demi-god but he was a lot shrewder and capable than a lot of people want to give him credit for.
Reagan was president from 1981 to 1988. So, he started as President after the curve of prison rate started to rise, but before it has significantly diverged from baseline. The curve continued to get steeper after he left, with the steepest part right at the transistion from (George H.W.) Bush to Clinton
Code is text that conveys meaning, which is one possible definition of "speech" in written form
No, except it isn't.
Code is text that gives a computer a series of steps to accomplish a result. "Meaning" is a human concept-- you have to convey meaning to somebody. A computer just executes code, it doesn't know or care if the code has "meaning."
By this definition, conveying meaning, code that is only read by the machine is not speech, since it does not convey meaning..
The day the government controls your speech, democracy is dead.
Different people have different ideas on what "speech" consists of. EFF makes a good lawyerly argument in favor of the position that the cryptographic key signing an application is "speech", but it is certainly not "speech" of any kind that would have been recognized by the founding fathers. It could also be argued that the cryptographic key is simply the key to a lock, and the govenment most certainly can demand, with a court order, that a lock smith open a lock.
With that said, I'm completely on Apple's side here (the implications seem to be far too drastic for the small amount of gain of opening a phone that probably has nothing whatsoever on it)... but I do realize that there are actually reasonable arguments on both sides.
"The program is unprecedented because there are no safeguards from privacy protection laws and minimal pushback from civil liberty advocates and companies"
That's because China doesn't have privacy protection, or civil liberties.
Oregon State University ( http://www-po.coas.oregonstate... ? has been recording ocean s"sea level" and other data with sophisicated instruments since the 1970's.
Interesting link, but nowhere on that page is there any mention of global measurements of sea level.
...However, Scott Adams (of Dilbert fame) and many, many, other talented artists, photographers, musicians, and writers
If you define "many many" as meaning "very few".
Basically, you're saying "give away your work on the internet, and if people like it enough maybe they'll buy t-shirts." Yeah, right.
(by the way, you seem unaware of it, but Scott Adams is mostly famous because his strip is syndicated in 2,000 newspapers, not because of his internet presence. Slashdot readers are probably unaware of this, but actual physical newspapers still exist.)
They need to figure out a way to make money that doesn't annoy the shit out of their 'customers'. Because otherwise people will go elsewhere and all the advertising in the world will be worthless.
I wish I knew what that way to make money was.
As far as I can tell, the only way writers and artists are able to make money from content on the internet is by putting up a kickstarter and basically saying "send me money".
No, not Navy: NRO. It was apparently the mirror built for the next-generation reconaissance satellite, which got cancelled.
Also, it's not the whole spy satellite-- it's just the mirror.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news...
To me that is the very definition of a back door, apple can install arbitrary software on your phone without your consent.
Um, what hardware do you have upon which it is impossible for someone with physical control of the hardware cannot install software?
-and if your answer is, "but at least I can encrypt my data"-- you do know that the proposed software that the FBI demands that Apple write doesn't actually get them into the phone; it just gives them the opportunity to brute-force the password.
Slashdot Mirror
Lockheed Martin once built an airship to go over 18km. Due to budget cuts and the required removal of equipment, a critical valve froze at about half that height, cutting the test flight short with an "unplanned controlled descent". The airship landed in a forest, and when the sun came out the next day, the solar panels started a fire.
Well, all except the part about "the solar panels started a fire." No, nothing caught fire. It just sort of crumpled and sat there in the trees.
http://defense-update.com/20110729_hale-d-high-altitude-airship-crashed-in-ohio.html
http://www.ohio.com/news/break-news/lockheed-martin-s-prototype-blimp-crashes-during-maiden-voyage-with-video-1.226880
...of these incidents are going to occur before someone decides it's an act of war?
We declared a "war on terror" fifteen years ago, and have not yet negotiated a peace treaty, so, yes: it's one more act of war in the ongoing war that we declared fifteen years ago.
But when it's not a country doing the attack, uh, who do you think we should retaliate against? We're already killing terrorists, or anybody we think might be terrorists or supporting terrorists or related to terrorists, with drone strikes as fast as we can.
The attackers want a disproportionate response. They're trying to provoke a retaliation; that would serve as a recruiting tool for them,
Basically, bug bounties mean you're paying freelancers to set up a working group to find exploits. And then hope that, once they have their group working well, that the group you paid to set up will sell their results to you, and only you.
Here's what Machiavelli said about mercenaries:
This is is rhetoric,not reality.
There was a NASA paper about the manufacture of solar cells on the moon part: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/n...
--and, now that I look at the NASA site, also this one: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/n...
Because... ?
You could start here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
With Hillary, yeah, you could say "so what if she's corrupt as shit and lies through her teeth? Don't all politicians do that?"
"she's corrupt as shit and lies through her teeth" is the line that the Republican machine has been drilling into us for years, yes, but as far as I can tell, there's no particular truth in that.
Pretty much every time I turn around they are starting some new million-dollar investigation (paid for by the public) that "this time" is going to get to the bottom of it, and this time will really dig up the dirt... but they never go anywhere.
That seems to be the pattern-- "she's certain to be indicted for this purported scandal. Well, there was nothing there, but anyway she's certain to be indicted for that purported scandal. Well, that turned out to be nothing, but she'd really certain to be indicted for this other purported scandal..."
None of them ever seem to have any real substance. But the endless barrage of smoke keeps getting generated.
And, uh, yes, it is customary to wipe your email server.
Id like to see that list of people so we can go after them as well
OK, I just named two: Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice.
As far as I can tell, Hillary is criticized for things that, when other people do them, get a response of "well, so what?" The continuing barrage of criticism of Hillary over things that are complete non-issues seems to be very good testimony that there isn't anything substantive to go after her for.
Trump is our only hope to stop Ted Cruz.
Trump just likes to shoot off his mouth. Cruz really is evil.
For god's sake, don't stop Trump-- stop Cruz.
I am extremely sympathetic to this guy. I'd like to myself have the technology to shut down annoying people doing annoying things. Unfortunately, I am also sympathetic to the fact that this is illegal, and it's illegal for good reason, and he should go to jail. If he'd only done it once, he should just get a warning: but this isn't the first time, and he should go to jail
Global warming has nothing to do with how much snow is in your driveway, the snow in your driveway this year is "weather", not "climate".
And, more to the point, the amount of snow in a given location is not the same as the temperature in that location.
Amount of snow is related to how much water vapor is in the air.
Reagan did not start out negotiating with the Soviets, he initially scared the crap of them and they were convinced that Reagan was going to start a war with a pre-emptive nuclear strike.
That was seriously frightening, since their response to what they perceived as preparations by us for war was to move to launch-on-warning status, which means that an error could have catastrophic consequences.
In terms of technology, this was all a consequence of the adoption of MIRV warheads in the 70s, in which a small number of missiles launched could take out most, or possibly all, of the missiles of the other side, giving the first side to launch an overwhelming advantage.
It apparently never occurred to Reagan that the Soviets might find our moves threatening. He was so fixed in the viewpoint that the Soviets were the ones with evil intent, that he was unable to consider that they might see us as the aggressors.
Reagan slowly transitioned to a defensive posture and then finally to a de-arming posture (The Dead Hand by David Hoffman touches on this and the Soviet militaries view of the west... it's a great read). Reagan is not a demi-god but he was a lot shrewder and capable than a lot of people want to give him credit for.
He had good and bad points.
What exactly did Reagan do that previous administrations back to Truman's hadn't done?
Caused Americans to imprison more of its population than China.
Hmm. Maybe.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/U.S._incarceration_rates_1925_onwards.png
Reagan was president from 1981 to 1988. So, he started as President after the curve of prison rate started to rise, but before it has significantly diverged from baseline. The curve continued to get steeper after he left, with the steepest part right at the transistion from (George H.W.) Bush to Clinton
Code is text that conveys meaning, which is one possible definition of "speech" in written form
No, except it isn't.
Code is text that gives a computer a series of steps to accomplish a result. "Meaning" is a human concept-- you have to convey meaning to somebody. A computer just executes code, it doesn't know or care if the code has "meaning."
By this definition, conveying meaning, code that is only read by the machine is not speech, since it does not convey meaning..
The day the government controls your speech, democracy is dead.
Different people have different ideas on what "speech" consists of. EFF makes a good lawyerly argument in favor of the position that the cryptographic key signing an application is "speech", but it is certainly not "speech" of any kind that would have been recognized by the founding fathers. It could also be argued that the cryptographic key is simply the key to a lock, and the govenment most certainly can demand, with a court order, that a lock smith open a lock.
With that said, I'm completely on Apple's side here (the implications seem to be far too drastic for the small amount of gain of opening a phone that probably has nothing whatsoever on it)... but I do realize that there are actually reasonable arguments on both sides.
"The program is unprecedented because there are no safeguards from privacy protection laws and minimal pushback from civil liberty advocates and companies"
That's because China doesn't have privacy protection, or civil liberties.
This is China we're talking about.
Wow, Now the deniers interpret a site that says NOTHING AT ALL as signs that the data agree with them.
Oregon State University ( http://www-po.coas.oregonstate... ? has been recording ocean s"sea level" and other data with sophisicated instruments since the 1970's.
Interesting link, but nowhere on that page is there any mention of global measurements of sea level.
Wake me up when they hack the Denver mint.
...However, Scott Adams (of Dilbert fame) and many, many, other talented artists, photographers, musicians, and writers
If you define "many many" as meaning "very few".
Basically, you're saying "give away your work on the internet, and if people like it enough maybe they'll buy t-shirts." Yeah, right.
(by the way, you seem unaware of it, but Scott Adams is mostly famous because his strip is syndicated in 2,000 newspapers, not because of his internet presence. Slashdot readers are probably unaware of this, but actual physical newspapers still exist.)
They need to figure out a way to make money that doesn't annoy the shit out of their 'customers'. Because otherwise people will go elsewhere and all the advertising in the world will be worthless.
I wish I knew what that way to make money was.
As far as I can tell, the only way writers and artists are able to make money from content on the internet is by putting up a kickstarter and basically saying "send me money".
This is an old spy satellite for the Navy
No, not Navy: NRO. It was apparently the mirror built for the next-generation reconaissance satellite, which got cancelled.
Also, it's not the whole spy satellite-- it's just the mirror. http://www.sciencemag.org/news...
some more links of interest:
http://www.sciencemag.org/news...
http://www.skyandtelescope.com...
To me that is the very definition of a back door, apple can install arbitrary software on your phone without your consent.
Um, what hardware do you have upon which it is impossible for someone with physical control of the hardware cannot install software? -and if your answer is, "but at least I can encrypt my data"-- you do know that the proposed software that the FBI demands that Apple write doesn't actually get them into the phone; it just gives them the opportunity to brute-force the password.
I'd really say, any ability to update any operating system is a place where a back door could be inserted.